Journal of The Korean Ophthalmological Society (대한안과학회지)

The Korean Ophthalmological Society (대한안과학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Autorefraction and Clinical Refraction with or without in Children

소아에서 조절마비 전과 후에 시행한 자동굴절검사와 검사자에 의한 굴절검사의 비교

Choi, Moon-Jeong;Baek, Seung-Hee;Gong, Sang-Mook
최문정;백승희;공상묵

  • Published : 20050500
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The difference in the values between autorefraction and clinical refraction with or without cycloplegia in children were analyzed as a function of age. Methods: One hundred and twenty five children (230 eyes) with myopia or hyperopia were classified into three age groups. Their ages ranged from 2 to 14. They were examined with a Cannon RK-5 autorefractor, and experienced personnel the clinical refraction before and after cycloplegia. Discrepancies beyond 0.5 diopter in spherical equivalent, spherical and cylinder power were regarded as being significant and the discrepancy rates (%) were calculated. The mean absolute differences in the values of each refractive component in myopia and hyperopia were also compared separately according to. Results: All the differences by cycloplegia were significantly smaller in the myopia patients over 5 years old. However, only the discrepancy rates of the spherical equivalent and the sphere component between the clinical manifest refraction and the cycloplegic refraction were significantly smaller in the higher age groups. The comparisons between the clinical and autorefraction revealed significant difference between the age groups only in those with myopia with cycloplegia. Conclusions: There were differences between the cycloplegic refraction and non-cycloplegic refraction values particularly in myopia patients under five years old and in all hyperopic patients. Autorefraction showed differences from the clinical refraction in both myopia and hyperopia regardless of their ages particularly in those without cycloplegia. Therefore, autorefraction and clinical refraction should be used with caution in children.

목적 : 소아에서 조절마비 전 후, 자동굴절검사와 검사자에 의한 굴절검사의 차이를 연령군별로 비교해 보고자 하였다. 대상과 방법 : 소아 125명 230안을 대상으로 근시와 원시군으로 나누어, 연령별로 1군(5세 이하), 2군(6세～9세), 3군(10세～14세)으로 분류하였다. 조절마비 전 후에 각각 자동굴절검사와 검사자에 의한 굴절검사를 시행하고, 두 검사값이 $\pm$0.5D 이상 차이 나는 경우(오차율)을 구하고, 두 검사간 차이의 절대치 평균(이하 차이평균)을 비교하였다. 결과 : 조절마비 전 후에 근시군은 검사자에 의한 검사와 자동굴절검사 모두 오차율과 차이평균이 나이가 많은 군에서 유의하게 감소하였으나, 원시군은 두 검사간의 오차율만이 2, 3군에서 구면렌즈 대응치와 구면도수에서 줄어들어 유의한 차이를 보였다. 자동굴절검사와 검사자에 의한 검사의 비교에서는 근시군은 조절마비 후, 3군에서 모든 굴절요소의 오차율이 줄어들어 유의한 차이를 보였으나, 원시군은 조절마비 여부와 무관하게 모든 굴절요소에서 연령군별로 오차율과 차이평균 모두 유의한 차이가 없었다. 결론 : 조절마비에 의한 오차율은 근시의 경우만 나이 들면서 유의하게 줄어드는 경향을 보이고, 자동굴절검사는 조절마비 후 근시군을 제외하고는 연령에 관계없이 검사자에 의한 굴절검사와 오차를 보였다. 그러므로 특히 원시와 5세 이하 근시 소아의 경우 조절마비가 반드시 필요하고, 자동굴절검사는 검사자에 의한 굴절검사와 오차를 보일 수 있어 주의가 필요하다 하겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. Moon NJ, Kim JC, Koo BS. The study on the necessity of cycloplegic refraction in school children. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1988;29:377-85
  2. Duane TD. Clinical ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Optics and Refraction 1976;5:383-444
  3. Daniel R, Snydacker D, Frank E, et al. Cycloplegia and mydriasis. Refraction 1972;55-7
  4. Hiatt RL, Braswell R, Smith L, Patty JW. Refraction using mydriatic, cycloplegic and manifest techniques. Am J Ophthalmol 1973;76:739-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(73)90571-0
  5. Kim YS, An HS, Jin YH. A study about the accuracy of automated refraction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1995;36:2207-12
  6. Kim MS, Chang HR. The evaluation of noncycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction in children according to the age. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1998;39:728-34
  7. Helveston EM, Pachtman MA, Cadera W, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Nidek AR autorefractor. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1984;21:227- 30
  8. Pappas CJ, Anderson DR, Briese FW. Clinical evaluation of 6600 autorefractor. Arch Ophthalmol 1978;96:993-6 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1978.03910050517001
  9. Poise KA, Kerr KE. An automatic objective optometer. Description and clinical evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol 1975;93:225-31 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1975.01010020233013
  10. Charman WN. A pioneering instrument. The Collins electronic refractionometer. Ophthalmic Optician 1976;16:345
  11. Wong EK Jr, Patella VM, Pratt MY, et al. Clinical evaluation of Humphrey automatic refractor. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:870-5 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1984.01040030690020
  12. Duane A. Amplitude of accommodation. Arch Ophthalmol 1925;54:568
  13. Paul LK, Albert A. Adler's physiology of the eye. In: Anthony MN. Ruth EM. eds. Development of vision in infancy, 10th ed. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Co, 2003; chap. 21
  14. Rassow B, Wesemann W. Automated infrared refractors. Ophthalmology 1984;91:10-26
  15. Gallagher JT, Citek K. A badal optical stimulator for the Canon AutoRef R-I optometer. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:276-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199504000-00009
  16. Nayak BK, Ghose S, Singh JP. A comparison of cycloplegic and manifest refractions on the NR-1000F (an objective Auto Refractometer). Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71:73-5 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.71.1.73
  17. Bannon RE. A new automated subjective optometor. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1977;54:433-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-197707000-00001
  18. Woo GC, Woodruff ME. The AO SR III TM subjective refraction system: comparison with phoropter measures. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1978;55:591-6 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-197808000-00009
  19. Keech PM. The effect of cycloplegia on the determination of refractive error by the Ophthalmetron. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1979;56:228-30 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-197904000-00002
  20. Wesemann W, Rassow B. Automatic infrared refractors-a comparative study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987;64:627-38 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198708000-00011
  21. Raj PS, Villada JR, Lewis AE, et al. Comparative evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 570 and Canon RK-1 autorefractors: I. Objective autorefraction in normal subjects. Eye 1992;6:284-6 https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1992.54
  22. Villada JR, Raj PS, Lewis AE, et al. Comparative evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 570 and Canon RK-1 autorefractors: II. Objective autorefraction in pseudophakes. Eye 1992;6:287-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1992.55
  23. Charman WN. Jennings JA, Whitefoot H. The refraction of the eye in relation to spherical aberration and pupil size. Br J Physiol Opt 1978;32:78-93
  24. Miranda MN. Residual accommodation. Arch Ophthalmol 1972;87:515-7 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1972.01000020517004